🔗 Share this article

Legal representatives informed the tribunal that law enforcement maintained reasonable suspicions indicating Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's phone contained information relevant to terrorist activities when they detained him in the previous year as he tried to depart from the UK.

Refusal to Give Phone Password

The right-wing campaigner, whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reportedly refused to hand over his password to officers, stating it contained journalist content.” This happened after he was stopped at the Channel tunnel on July 28, 2024.

Trial Claims on Anti-Terror Powers

On the last day of the proceedings, state lawyer the prosecution argued that the anti-terror authorities employed by law enforcement are designed to allow information collection. She claimed that police had valid grounds to think the defendant still have connections to far-right activists, even following the dissolution of the EDL organization.

While his affiliation of the English Defence League has ceased, his views have not gone away. He is known for holding those views and therefore it is a reasonable suspicion to believe that on his telephone there could be data relevant to terrorist acts,” she told the court.

Morris added, “His beliefs – to which he is allowed – were not the subject for their attention on July 28. It was his connection to others who are potentially engaged in illegal actions.”

Circumstances of the Stop

The activist had arrived alone at the Channel tunnel in a luxury vehicle owned by a friend and was traveling to the Spanish resort of Benidorm with more than £13,000 in a carry-on, the court heard.

The money was reportedly from a collection to cover costs from arranging a large demonstration that took place the day before in Trafalgar Square.

Defense Submissions

The defendant, who denies failing to comply with anti-terror laws during the incident on 28 July of the previous year, could receive up to three months in jail or a possible £2,500 fine if convicted.

His lawyer, Alisdair Williamson KC, argued in closing submissions that counter-terrorism police who detained Robinson had conducted a “fishing expedition” and that he had been unlawfully detained.

Citing testimony from officers who said they called other organizations” after detaining him, Williamson said this was a reference to the security services and that no evidence had been offered from the security service to indicate his defendant was a security threat.

Williamson asserted the officers’ action was “discriminatory” because it was based to a “significant degree on a personal attribute.” He stated that the main factor” on the decision to stop him was “‘oh look, it’s Tommy Robinson”.

He noted that officers had used an “extraordinary power that needs to be properly policed” to try to discover information that was already known. The barrister proposed that his client journeyed to the resort frequently, which should have lessened the officers’ concerns about him.

Legal Costs and Verdict Date

Robinson stated that his court expenses in the proceedings were being covered by the tech billionaire, the proprietor of social media and electric car companies, who has emerged as an ally of the campaigner and lately spoke at a gathering arranged by him in the capital via a livestream.

A proposed day of the following Tuesday for the verdict was altered by the district judge, Sam Goozee, after Williamson explained his client was scheduled to be a guest of the Israel's administration from Wednesday and would not come back until 25 October.

{“I wouldn’t trouble you if this was a trip to Benidorm. I would ask him to rearrange it but he is a guest of a foreign government,” said the barrister.

The judge announced he would deliver his ruling on the morning of 4 November.